A Decision Theory Case to Chew On

A Decision Theory Case to Chew On

Here’s something I posted over on Andrew Gelman’s wonderful blog:

I read Alive and thought it unknowingly made a very powerful point about decision theory, that you always have to balance the risks of action against the risks of inaction. The plane was stuck in snow on a slope that led down to a valley that was partially inhabited. Yes, the immediate survivors could not see this, and sending a party down the slope seemed very dangerous (which it was), so they delayed for months. Meanwhile, without thinking explicitly about it, they accepted the risks of staying put, which included the obvious one of an avalanche (how can you not know this about snowy mountain slopes?), which in fact transpired, killing a large fraction of those who had survived the initial crash. In retrospect, once it was obvious they would not be rescued by being spotted from the air, they should have sent a party down to the valley, and it is probable many lives would have been saved. The whole cannibalism thing is a distraction, IMO.

As for the munchy business, I once knew someone who, when giving his name at a restaurant, said “Donner” so he could hear them call out “Donner party of four!”

Comments (0) | |